Title

Author Information

Location

University of Windsor

Document Type

Commentary

Keywords

Fallacy Theory

Start Date

18-5-2016 9:00 AM

End Date

21-5-2016 5:00 PM

Abstract

Fallacy theory has not been my particular concern until now – even if I spoke here and there about fallacies; mainly about the two specimens which I consider to be of the highest importance for argumentation theory. I mean “Ad baculum” and “Begging the question”. In fact I was not aware that a defense of fallacy theory was necessary because I had taken the criticisms of late to be mainly relying on a lack of clarity, confusion and exaggeration. Despite this estimation I will begin with stating that I agree with most of Aikin’s well minded proposals and solutions. Nevertheless I will provide some comments which hopefully can contribute to a fruitful discussion. They follow the sections of the paper.

Response to Submission

Included in

Share

COinS

May 18th, 9:00 AMMay 21st, 5:00 PM

Commentary on Scott Aikin, “A Modest Defense of Fallacy Theory”

University of Windsor

Fallacy theory has not been my particular concern until now – even if I spoke here and there about fallacies; mainly about the two specimens which I consider to be of the highest importance for argumentation theory. I mean “Ad baculum” and “Begging the question”. In fact I was not aware that a defense of fallacy theory was necessary because I had taken the criticisms of late to be mainly relying on a lack of clarity, confusion and exaggeration. Despite this estimation I will begin with stating that I agree with most of Aikin’s well minded proposals and solutions. Nevertheless I will provide some comments which hopefully can contribute to a fruitful discussion. They follow the sections of the paper.